openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
My experience was, 99 times out of 100, the default rules were the default for a reason and tended to be more fun, yes. Battlefield with maximum tickets was a slog. Counter-Strike with 20v20 is utter chaos. When they give you the ability to change the rules (which I’m totally in favor of!), the average person, and the servers you’re able to find, tend to be the ones with the numbers and sliders all set to max. You also end up with people coming and going mid-match, meaning the teams at the end of a round are rarely the ones you started with, and it makes me question what the point of that match was. Just my perspective.
Same, but that stuff tends to go hand in hand with live service, since they try to keep you hooked with extrinsic rewards. If the multiplayer game is released as a product that you own and isn’t expected to be a money printer with long-term additional content, there’s rarely a need for any kind of progression mechanic.
Nah, it’s worse in some genres than others, but you can still find good old-fashioned multiplayer without the nonsense. And this article is a sign of the hunger for it, so there will be more. Plus, those old games have a tendency to still work to this day.
I hate live service as well. The existence of it is kinda due to people that need keys jangling to post attention to anything.
Creating fomo should be cause to shut your company down. Period.
As for the first part of the reply, I’ve never played BF so I don’t really know exactly what tickets are. I know it has something to do with respawns, but given that they use a different word I assume there’s more to it. But for counter strike, I’ve never even seen a 40 player game.
But yeah, a lot of servers would run maxed out player slots and bad time limits and such, but good server browsers have filters to pare down to settings you wanna see play.
Or what I usually do is just sort by lowest ping and just go down til I find one that I think looks good. For a fps, anything above double digit ping is almost unplayable. Anything above above 70 or so is already annoying af, but much higher than that and it just gets worse.
Sorting by ping does cut down a lot of choices tho. Once you consistently can’t find any games you want with an acceptable ping, the game is basically dead for you. Or you start dealing with worse pings until you can’t enjoy the game any more. Keeping the game playable is great, but it only matters as long as there are games available. But even with “dead” games, they can be resurrected any time there’s a community push. That’s rare tho, but for preservation reasons, I like the idea that a game is only ever as dead as the desire to play it.
Tickets in Battlefield are respawns, but the team with more capture points causes the opposing team to “bleed” tickets, and it’s faster when the difference in capture points is greater. 500 ticket servers take forever for a game to end.